Old 01-13-2014, 06:35 PM   #1
Eugene
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 243
Default Bad cropping blues.....advice needed

It's a long time since I've had three rejections in a row

Shooting conditions were not ideal, lots of catenary masts and wires and sharp angles off platform ends, it was a lot different to what I am used to.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...53&key=4144210
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...59&key=2129348
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...61&key=1378615

Any advice will be very welcome!

Eugene
Eugene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 04:09 PM   #2
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

1: bit off the top and lose the out-of-focus upright on the right
2: maybe tighter all around? Not too much though, it's an interesting scene...
3: not sure about the cropping but everything other than the trains appears to have a CW lean which may be difficult to overcome without making the trains themselves look off.

EDIT: also on #3, try lightening the shadows a bit, the signal mast and the ones on the lower left especially as they compete to draw the eye away from the rest of the image...
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!

Last edited by wds; 01-14-2014 at 04:26 PM.
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 05:00 PM   #3
Eugene
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 243
Default

Many thanks Wayne, I am working on them

Cheers
Eugene
Eugene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 05:47 PM   #4
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

what are the dimensions of those photos? they look kind of squarish which is a big "no-no" around here.
__________________
Now with Flickr!
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 05:57 PM   #5
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
Many thanks Wayne, I am working on them

Cheers
Eugene
On #3 I did a quick hack job of lightening the shadows and I skewed just the upper left corner out to make the beam appear vertical. Overall I think it reduces the feeling of it being unlevel without altering the train much, might be worth a try.

Name:  6780_1389638782a copy.jpg
Views: 252
Size:  844.4 KB

Good luck!

Wayne
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!

Last edited by wds; 01-14-2014 at 06:03 PM.
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 07:35 PM   #6
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Image © Eugene Armer
PhotoID: 466247
Photograph © Eugene Armer


1 down, 2 to go!
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 07:13 PM   #7
Eugene
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 243
Default

On #2 I trimmed quite a bit off the top to get rid of the catenary hangar that was protruding into the top of the shot, and also cropped the right side, but that didn't help, so I'm really not sure what they are looking for.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...14&key=4810699
Eugene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 07:20 PM   #8
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

Subject is too small.
__________________
Now with Flickr!
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 07:21 PM   #9
Eugene
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatchetman View Post
what are the dimensions of those photos? they look kind of squarish which is a big "no-no" around here.
Only # 1 was too square (1024 x 772), that's been fixed. The other two are both 1024 x 683
Eugene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 07:27 PM   #10
Eugene
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatchetman View Post
Subject is too small.
OK, I get your point, but for me it's an interesting scene as it is.
Eugene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 07:53 PM   #11
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
OK, I get your point, but for me it's an interesting scene as it is.
Alas, what you think is interesting or what I think is interesting matters not in this case.
__________________
Now with Flickr!
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 08:04 PM   #12
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
Only # 1 was too square (1024 x 772), that's been fixed. The other two are both 1024 x 683
I don't understand this comment. RP shots are not limited to the 3:2 format and 1024x772 is completely acceptable. Whether or not any particular image looks better when cropped 3:2 or some other ratio is a separate question. Here you seem to express it as an obligatory ratio.

I have uploaded 1024x819 on several occasions.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 04:00 AM   #13
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
Only # 1 was too square (1024 x 772), that's been fixed. The other two are both 1024 x 683
I usually do 1024 x 730.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2014, 07:23 PM   #14
Eugene
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatchetman View Post
Alas, what you think is interesting or what I think is interesting matters not in this case.
Too true

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
I don't understand this comment. RP shots are not limited to the 3:2 format and 1024x772 is completely acceptable. Whether or not any particular image looks better when cropped 3:2 or some other ratio is a separate question. Here you seem to express it as an obligatory ratio.

I have uploaded 1024x819 on several occasions.
I was simply responding to Hatchetman's comment that my shots looked "kind of squarish"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
I usually do 1024 x 730.
I find that 1024 x 683 or thereabouts works well for most of my shots, but it's not a hard and fast rule.
Eugene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2014, 03:06 PM   #15
Eugene
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 243
Default

I did quite a bit of work on shot #3, but no joy:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...88&key=4608700

Perhaps too tight this time around?
Eugene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2014, 12:56 PM   #16
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene View Post
I did quite a bit of work on shot #3, but no joy:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...88&key=4608700

Perhaps too tight this time around?
I reject that rejection! You have to remember these are the same folks who run that jet photos site, you know, the one where all the wings are cropped off.

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7739440

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7724555&nseq=13

To anyone who's ever flown, that's a very uncomfortable sight to see, and as much a photographic sin as shooting a prop plane in the air at a shutter speed over 1/500th, freezing the prop and making it look like it's one second shy of a stall. So don't take it personally, but with this one it's probably time to move on...

P.S. Don't ya just love that watermark in that second link above?!?
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!

Last edited by wds; 01-19-2014 at 01:16 PM.
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2014, 05:31 PM   #17
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
To anyone who's ever flown, that's a very uncomfortable sight to see, and as much a photographic sin as shooting a prop plane in the air at a shutter speed over 1/500th, freezing the prop and making it look like it's one second shy of a stall. So don't take it personally, but with this one it's probably time to move on...
Well, I've flown, it isn't a sin to me. Maybe you mean flown on the flight deck. At any rate, laying down a rule light that is equivalent to laying down a rule about the nose of an engine requiring full light. Those who make that a photographic sin are the same as those who put arbitrary limits on rail photography.

When I first looked at the American Airlines shot, i thought to myself, why is that a PCA? It's just a plane wedgie!

Of course, there will always be the battle over the line between arbitrary and not.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2014, 07:28 PM   #18
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Well, I've flown, it isn't a sin to me. Maybe you mean flown on the flight deck. At any rate, laying down a rule light that is equivalent to laying down a rule about the nose of an engine requiring full light. Those who make that a photographic sin are the same as those who put arbitrary limits on rail photography.

When I first looked at the American Airlines shot, i thought to myself, why is that a PCA? It's just a plane wedgie!

Of course, there will always be the battle over the line between arbitrary and not.
First off, which definition of arbitrary are we talking about here, as it seems the word can have almost opposite meanings (i.e. by whim, or by law):






ar·bi·trar·y (....) adj.1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute
4. Not limited by law; despotic










Never mind, I think I know and I'm just being annoying (an arbitrary choice ) So that's just the way I feel about it I guess. The same as I feel it's a photographic sin to cut off any vital part of the machine (like the nose or wheels of a locomotive, for instance, unless you're going for a detail shot) as in this picture:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...748420&nseq=13

If this guy was going for a tail shot, then fine, go for a tail shot. Don't cut off the nose unless you're scrapping the damn plane!

They also seem to have an arbitrary (by whim) rule over there that including anything more than a scale millimeter of open space in the front or rear on a side shot is a photographic sin:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...7748819&nseq=8

All I'm trying to do is point out the ridiculousness of the reject. What is so wrong with the cropping of his latest rendition (or my version - or the original for that matter) that makes it unacceptable for inclusion in the database? I'm sure that there are thousands of images already in the database that some could say were worse, I don't get what they are objecting to here. I thought for a moment it might be the lack of space between the further train and the signal standard, but that would be bad comp, not crop would it not? Besides there's not much aside from jumping on the track that he could do about that anyway. I just think that in this case they are being regal poopheads. Anyway, that's my (arbitrary) reasoning!
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2014, 07:54 PM   #19
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Oh, sorry, didn't really catch your intent.

Like anything, cropping is a matter of taste. I am generally fully inclusive in cropping, but I see value in what I call truncation (my own personal term, just minted!) as that reduces the focus on the whole and thus increases the focus on the parts.

In your shot, I have no idea what the "RP-able crop" is. I think it is fine.

Quote:
unless you're going for a detail shot
Because my life will be changed with more RP views, and simply because I can, I now present my cropped detail shot.

Image © Janusz Mrozek
PhotoID: 204349
Photograph © Janusz Mrozek
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2014, 08:58 PM   #20
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
The same as I feel it's a photographic sin to cut off any vital part of the machine
With all due respect, your body is cut off in your avatar.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2014, 09:17 PM   #21
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Detail shot Jim!
I didn't take it anyway, blame Ron Bouwhuis! He likes stuff like that!

Image ©
PhotoID:
Photograph ©
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!

Last edited by wds; 01-19-2014 at 09:47 PM.
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2014, 07:53 PM   #22
Eugene
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
I reject that rejection! You have to remember these are the same folks who run that jet photos site, you know, the one where all the wings are cropped off.

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7739440

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7724555&nseq=13

To anyone who's ever flown, that's a very uncomfortable sight to see, and as much a photographic sin as shooting a prop plane in the air at a shutter speed over 1/500th, freezing the prop and making it look like it's one second shy of a stall. So don't take it personally, but with this one it's probably time to move on...
I think you're right Wayne, I'm not going to keep banging my head trying to figure this one out. I'll just be satisfied with the thought that it's NOT a bad shot just because RP says so!

As for the jet photos, I'm not even going there!

Cheers
Eugene
Eugene is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.